Solution to Obama-care. The American Businessman

What happens if we end up with Obama’s socialist Health Care that he and the Democrats are trying to have enacted in this country?

While it’s not a certainty that this will happen, I believe it’s likely that we’ll get some form of Socialized Medicine from the Democrats and Obama.

What is likely to happen should the public system be created is that the health insurance industry will disappear. Obama claims that you can continue your current plan but the companies will not be able to compete. Businesses will be forced to cover employees and if they don’t, they will be fined. Since the employees aren’t being covered, they’ll have to go to the socialist care put out by Obama, or they will have to purchase their own coverage from private industry. Government will see to it that they are much less expensive than private care, so people will choose the government plan. They’ll actually not have much choice because they won’t be able to afford private plans because they will need their money to pay their taxes.

However, the American people have always been an independent group. Many will fight off the government plan as long as they can. Businesses are in business to earn a profit. They are not in business to supply people with jobs and benefits. Business will also fight back. This could be the new American Revolution that comes about. Consider a couple of possibilities.

First the American people. We won’t put up with government running our lives. Caging people up is not the way to endear them to you. If the resistance is strong enough before the next election, we could see Democrats falling like flies in the next election with the Republicans taking over and repealing many of these socialist laws that are being enacted. Or we may see more Democrats looking out for the American people rather than big lobbyists to be corrupted by or to corrupt themselves.

The idea that I find most fascinating, however, is American Business. The Obama administration has taken over Chrysler and General Motors. The Unions now own a substantial portion of GM along with the U.S. and Canada. One of the ideas floated is that unions would be exempt from taxes related to health care. But there is still another car company out there that is large and did not take any bailout and did not file bankruptcy and is not under the governments thumb yet. Ford Motor Company.

Let’s assume that Obama’s health care plan is going to be expensive to Ford Motor Company and they choose not to provide the health insurance to their employees. However, they must obey the law if this is enacted. So what could their solution be?

Ford Motor Company could lay off all of their employees and tell them that they will never be called back. Instead, Ford could advertise for Independent Contractors to come and do the work that they need done. But there aren’t that many independent contractors out there to replace all of the workers that Ford just laid off. There is however, a very large pool of people that are unemployed, that could be independent contractors. They are the current employees of Ford Motor Company. So, let’s use Joe Sixpack as an example. He’s working for Ford Motor Company today and he’s earning $50,000 per year. He has all of the benefits of working for Ford. Ford pays him every two weeks, deducts out taxes, deducts out Social Security and pays the employer half of social security and all other expenses related to employing Joe. Joe has a wife and two kids. They are all covered under the benefit package provided by Ford.

Ford now needs to cut expenses to compete with the new Government Motors and Chrysler. So they decide a good way to save a lot of money is lay off Joe and his co-workers, and bring in independent contractors.

Joe is an innovative guy and decides he’s going into business for himself as an independent contractor. He registers a business name and approaches Ford about becoming an independent contractor doing the work that Ford needs to have done.

Joe, however needs to think of his family. He must provide health insurance for himself and his family, he needs to earn enough to feed, clothe and set aside money for his children’s education and for his own retirement. So Joe negotiates a contract with Ford to work for them for $60,000 for one year. He agrees to put out a certain number of units per day using a five day work schedule, for nine hours per day.

Ford no longer has to pay benefits, Joe will take care of it from his pay that he negotiated. Joe will also have business expenses that he didn't have before, as a result of being a business owner, thus saving more money in taxes. Ford no longer has to pay half of Joes Social Security. It’s now Joe’s responsibility as an independent contractor to pay for his own social security. The same with Medicare. Ford also doesn’t have to give Joe a two week paid vacation each year. Joe can take his two weeks, but he just won’t be paid during those two weeks.

Ford no longer has to withhold money for Joe’s taxes. It’s now Joe’s responsibility. Ford no longer has any obligation to take part in pensions for Joe, although Joe is free to negotiate any other perks if Ford is willing to give him any. It’s now Joe’s responsibility for himself and his family to create his own education for children, and his own retirement for himself.

Joe’s business is now merit based. If he does the job, Ford is happy to have him continue to do the work they need done. If he fails to do the job as his contract states, Ford is free to replace him and bring in another independent contractor to fill their needs.

There is no more need for unions. Joe negotiated his own contract. Joe could even hire employees under his business or he is free to hire his own independent contractors to fill other positions that need to be filled.

This simple little act, has created a spurt of new businesses (each former employee of Ford), has saved Ford from the nightmare of tax withholding, social security expense, health care expense and more. Not only has it created those new businesses, but it’s also created a demand for more CPA’s, for example, which creates the need for more offices to house the CPA's. After all, Joe will need someone to do his record keeping, not to mention his taxes. This will also give Joe the choice of going to the government for health care, or to go out and get his own health care privately.

Imagine if this were to happen at Ford Motor Company and it would work. How long do you think it would take for other businesses to see the benefits of hiring independent contractors rather than employees? The former employee, who is now an independent contractor would have to take more pride in his work because it’s now his business name attached to his work. He’d have more control over his money. He’d have more of a stake in how much the government charges in taxes each year which means he’d pay more attention at election time and make sure that he’s voting for the person that’s going to best serve his needs for his business.

Joe would have more of a stake in seeing that he gets a health care plan that will take care of his family as he wants them cared for. Should he not be satisfied, he could then change over to a competitor in health insurance to get better care. Doctors may find it necessary to open their own offices again rather than being with a group of doctors. All of these create more competition, more innovation on the part of many industries.

Ford Motor company would be saving a lot of money in employee expenses. This would lead to lower prices of cars. That would increase the demand for more cars, which would create a need for more independent contractors to fill that need. States would be clamoring for a factory to be built in their state to hire their unemployed citizens. They’d be forced to change the tax code to entice Ford to build more in their state so that their state’s citizens would be hired.

Since Ford’s major competitor would be Government Motors and Chrysler, both owned by the government, they would now be leveling the playing field that Obamacare will tilt in the governments favor.

This is just one idea. What other ideas would Ford come up with to stay competitive. In the meantime, Obama would be responsible for busting the unions. While it would be Ford that would get the ball rolling to fix the problems in health care in this country, Obama would be inadvertently responsible for fixing it by trying to create this socialist society that is doomed to failure, by creating the reaction by American business to save their way of life, improve their businesses and the American people that would take advantage and create their own business and improve their businesses.

The American businessman would once again stand up and lead the newest American Revolution by creating a better business and personal standard of living climate against what is becoming a more and more tyrannical government. No government would be toppled. It would have to be responsive to the actions taken by the American Businessman.

There’s an old law of physics. For each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Obama pushing through government control of businesses and forcing health care on them is the action. Businesses finding a way to improve themselves while staying within the laws would rebuild the economy, and be the equal and opposite reaction.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Health Care in America

In the interest of full disclosure, before I comment on this topic, I want to make it known that I am licensed to sell health insurance in Michigan. I rarely sell it. I do have to offer it. I don't like selling health care insurance. It's cumbersome for me, confusing to everyone. Now, understand I'm talking about major medical coverage. Going to your doctor. There are exceptions to what I said. I do suggest and offer Long Term Care coverage and Medicare Supplement plans for the retired.

The President held a press conference during the day yesterday. It was nice to see that he didn't interrupt prime time programming for a change. It's much better when few are watching. During his press conference, he said that he didn't understand the notion that government entering the health care business wouldn't be competition for the market place and can't understand why insurance companies would balk at government offering a public solution to health care in the United States.

There are a couple of simple answers to this. I have no doubt that he can't understand it. You have to believe in our market system to understand. First, let me say right off the bat that we do have a problem in this country with health care. There are problems with it. However, and this is where any liberals reading this will start seeing smoke coming from their ears, our health care system, flawed as it may be, is still the BEST HEALTH CARE AVAILABLE IN THE WORLD!

If it weren't, people from around the world would not be coming here to get their care rather than waiting on a waiting list in their own country for someone to decide they are worthy of seeing a doctor.

NOBODY in this country has to go without seeing a doctor. If you need the emergency room, you will not be turned away. If you need to see a doctor, you will be able to see one, and you won't have to wait for months to get that broken arm fixed.

But let's get to Obama's words about not understanding why anyone would have a problem with a public health system competing against the private companies. Private companies exist to make a profit. They can't exist without a profit. They must pay their sales people to offer insurance to the American people. They must pay the underwriters to write the policy. They must pay for the creation of some of the most innovative care plans ever created. Think about it. When you go to work, do you want to get paid? What if your company didn't pay you? What incentive would you have to go to work in the morning? Imagine if you called your insurance company because you have a claim and there is nobody there to answer the phone? Nobody to mail your check or pay your doctor? These are people that do this work and the companies must make a profit to pay them to do that work, and to earn money to support their own families.

How does this differ from the Federal government if they manage to get into the insurance business? Government doesn't have to work for a profit. If they run short on funds, they can always go into deficit spending....again. They can have Congress appropriate more money to pay for it. Where doesn't Congress get their money? From you and I. TAXES.

Government has no need to run a profitable business. They can just go to the people for more money. So when they force insurance companies out of business and there is no more competition, when they need more money, their argument will be, 'you don't want to go without health insurance for your children, so we're going to raise taxes'. Again and again.

Can you name one business that has ever been run successfully by the government? I can. The military. That's it. They botched Social Security. They plunged Medicare/Medicaid into deep debt and will be operating in the red in a matter of months if it hasn't happened already.

How do I know they will force insurance companies out of business? Have you tried to find a private insurance for someone over the age of 65? You can't. The best that the elderly have is Medicare Supplement. It "supplements" Medicare...which as I mentioned is operating in the red. And the rates on the Medicare Supplement continue to rise. Why? Because Medicare doesn't have the money any longer, and more and more are reaching the age of the elderly. The baby boomers started retiring and that will only grow for the next 20 years. In addition, medical advances are keeping people alive longer and longer. This will increase expenses.

Competition works. Capitalism works. The free market system works. Obama putting a public health system into place is not competition. It's taking a level playing field and tilting it towards government.

We now know that the Federal Government has forced states to take the so-called stimulus money. We know that the Federal Government fired the CEO of GM and they have their own people running the new Government Motors even if in the background pulling the strings. We now know that Bank of America was forced to take on a bad investment (Chairman Bernanke is dealing with that in hearings today). Each thing that Government gets into gets corrupted. The one success story they have is the military and they are cutting funding for the military. Of course, we also know that the dictator Obama took over ABC on Wednesday night under the guise of answering health care questions.

If Obama's health plan was the be all and end all as he tries to make it sound, why did he have to have the infomercial last night on ABC where there was no opposition allowed? No hard questions asked. Why was the deck stacked against those opposing his plan? Why did he have to have the hand picked audience where there was no dissenting point of views permitted? If his plan will stand up to scrutiny, he wouldn't have had to take over ABC for the night and stage that dog and pony show.

There are problems with our Health Care in this country, but it's the best health care in the world. Let the professionals in the health care industry solve the problem and leave government out of it. Leave Obama out of it. To have government or the dictator Obama take it over is only guaranteeing that our standard of health care will drop to the level of the Canadian system (see the link below). The British system, the German system. All failing. All expensive and paid for with higher and higher taxes and still they don't have enough money.

If Obama's plan is so good, why is it that he has to provide for Unions to not have to pay taxes on their health care while everyone else does? This is another example of Obama trying to walk into a window. The "pain" is hidden, but it's there when you hit it.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4363

Boxer: Respect me or else

Brigadier General Michael Walsh was testifying before a Senate Committee regarding the work in Louisiana following the hurricane in 2005. He was being questioned by Senator Barbara Boxer. Each time he answered her, he respectfully called her ma'am. Senator Boxer seemed to take offense to this and interrupted his responses by requesting that he begin addressing her as Senator rather than ma'am. She said that she worked hard for the title and would prefer he use it.

There are so many things that can be said about this. For instance, her arrogance. She worked hard for the title and feels she's earned the right to be called Senator. I'm not sure that striving to be a Senator is a lofty goal, but okay. Perhaps she did work hard for it and it is responsible to address her as Senator. The Senate is an important part of government, and the office deserves respect. Those sitting in those seats are less than adequate and considering them worthy of respect, is difficult for me to consider. Respect is earned and not freely given. Barbara Boxer is one of those that I don't have much respect for, so I find this more than silly.

Her dressing down of the Brigadier General was uncalled for. She'd have been better served to have provided a heads up to those testifying that she'd prefer to be called Senator rather than ma'am, rather than trying to show him up in a hearing. The term "ma'am" is a term of respect for a higher rank. The military addresses men as "sir" and women as "ma'am". If the woman is outranked by the officer, the officer will address her as "Miss".

Ma'am comes from the term "madam". Apparently, many feel this is a negative term, probably because people tend to think of the woman heading a house of prostitution. However, in it's original form it was meant as "My Lady". I've always used it as a sign of respect for the woman that was speaking. Clients, girlfriends, acquaintences. When they said they'd like something done, or said, my answer has been "Yes ma'am". It's not intended to hurt or degrade anyone. Just giving them their proper respect. Occasionally, I'll even say "Yes'm" using the term that children used when speaking to their mother in the past.

It's not disputed that the liberals don't have much use for the military. Remember during the Clinton years, Hillary hated the military hanging around and she treated them with disrespect. Of course, we all know this by the treatment of General Petraeus when they called him General "Betrayus".

Barbara Boxers treatment of the Brigadier General was that same form of disrespect. Even in the story written, it says that she called the Brigadier General and spoke to him about it to clear the air, so to speak AFTER the hearing...in private. She can call the guy afterwards in private, but apparently isn't capable of preparing in advance of his testimony.

Barbara Boxer showed disrespect to Brigadier General Michael Walsh. She didn't earn any respect in return. Someone really needs to explain to these government people, Senators, staff, Representatives, Secretarys of different cabinets, White House staff and anyone else that draws a paycheck from the people that it's not about them. It's about the country. Boxer proves she hasn't earned the respect. Her office does, but she hasn't earned it.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/18/sen-boxer-chides-brigadier-general-calling-maam/

Census: Next Scandal

Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota has said that she will not completely fill out the census in 2010. She will give the number of people in her home, but she will not answer the questions that are included with the census.





Her reason for not doing so is due to too much information going into the system, which will be in the hands of ACORN among other Community Organizations.





ACORN is currently under investigation by no less than ten states and have been indicted in two states for their activities. This, while they are set to receive billions of dollars of taxpayer money.





Michele Bachmann has become a target of the Democrat Party for her staunch, unapologetic Conservative views.





My opinion is that the Census is Constitutionally mandated for a count of Americans every ten years and that giving your name and those of others that live in your household is and should be required. However, anything beyond that is government intrusiveness. I don't know if the other questions that are asked are required to be answered or not. But I'm with Mrs. Bachmann on this and don't want to tell the census workers anything other than what's required by the Constitution.



If you'll remember, Senator Judd Gregg was nominated to be Commerce Secretary. When accepted, the Census, which was handled by the Commerce Department, was moved to the White House. This raised many eyebrows and questions such as, was this done because Gregg is a Republican and couldn't be trusted to lead the Census? I think we are now seeing the answer to that and I believe it was wise of Senator Gregg to remove his name from consideration for the Commerce Department.


I certainly don't want to put family members at risk by telling ACORN workers about my life or that of my family.





I applaud Michele Bachmann for her stance. She's a star in the Republican Party and a real asset to Conservatives.





You're welcome to comment.





Brett

Finally!! President George W. Bush Speaks Out!

In Erie, Pennsylvania yesterday, former President George W. Bush had a few things to say. After five months of the new President blaming the former President for the country's woes, President Bush finally stood up and diplomatically responded to some of the issues.

While the former President spoke out, he was still very gracious and respectful in his comments. He was asked questions about the current state of the economy and stopped himself from going directly after Obama for his attempted solutions. He said that he had warned of the housing crisis before it became a crisis, which is true. Early in his Presidency and again after his re-election, he tried to get Congress to act on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but the Democrats in Congress blocked any solutions from coming. Bush described it as "vested interests" in Congress.

He also said, to rousing cheers from the audience, that it would be the private sector that would improve the economy and not the government. He added that Government doesn't create wealth, but it can create an environment making it easier for the free market and private sector to bring this economy around and said it will be better than it was before.

Regarding health care, he said that he was concerned about nationalizing health care that again, the private sector would be the one to fix the health care system.

You can read this at http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/18/bush-takes-swipes-at-policies-of-obama/. The headline is misleading. While Bush did talk about the current directions he did not go directly after Obama. He displayed class.

We in Michigan are familiar with "make excuse politics". We've been in a one state recession for five years and the rest of the country joined us in the past year. Governor Granholm has consistantly blamed Michigans woes on first former Governor John Engler and then President Bush then both of them. Yesterday, it was announced that Michigan's unemployment rate jumped to 14.1%. Highest in the nation again. I believe this is now 37 consecutive months.

Granholm blamed Engler in the beginning. Engler took over from Governor James Blanchard (D). Unemployment was in double digits at the time. After 12 years, Engler's final term expired. He left the state of Michigan with an unemployment rate of 3.9%. The economy was thriving.

In addition to Engler, Bush took over in 2001 as President. Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, when the economy dropped like a rock, his policies turned it around and the economy soared from 2002 until 2007. The strongest economy in over 25 years. He lowered taxes and revenues to the government INCREASED to record numbers. But not in Michigan. Granholm's policies, fee increases, tax increases were running Michigan down. While the rest of the country was growing and working, the people of Michigan were hearing "It's Englers' fault", it's "Bush's fault".

When Bush took over, he inherited a recession. You rarely heard the administration say that. He just went to work and implemented policies that would solve the problem. However, now that Obama is in there, he's taken up the mantra of Governor Granholm. "It's Bush's fault". Or "we inherited this mess".

In Bush's speech yesterday, he said he wasn't going to directly go after Obama's policies and he didn't. He showed in his answers much class and dignity, and talked about the issues. Even regarding the question of whether he thinks we're being led to socialism, he was still diplomatic and said "we'll see".

It's been just under 6 months, but I already miss having an adult in the White House. One can only hope that the new President takes advantage of advice from former Presidents. Perhaps he could start with not getting too close to the press. The press is his friend now, but they will turn on him. You have to be careful about stroking the tail of a dog. When he turns, there's teeth in the other end.

Bush didn't do things exactly correct last fall, in my opinion, but he didn't play the blame game. He went after the problem in the short time he had left. I'll criticize what he did from September through January, but I admire him for not shirking his responsibility and for taking on the problem. He handled this speech and question and answer period with much class. Something we're not seeing out of the current White House, nor from the Press for that matter.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

America: Land of Opportunity

In the past week we've learned several things. We've learned that our illustrious Congress, and of course the President, guessed wrong on the so-called stimulus package. This information comes from the Vice President of the United States on Meet the Press on Sunday, so we really can't question that source. I feel much better knowing that our government is passing laws, that they don't bother to read, based on "guesses".

We've also learned that our soldiers are now required to read terrorists their rights on the battlefield in Afghanistan and Iraq before taking them into custody. Never mind that they aren't entitled to rights because they aren't citizens of this country and because it's war. They now must be read their rights.

We've also learned that terrorists are now being released and deposited into Bermuda with beachfront living quarters that are exceptional places to live. Oh, and we're paying for it with our tax dollars. We also did this without seeking the approval of the British who happen to be the mother country for Bermuda. Apparently, when Obama said he was going to restore our esteem around the world, he only meant the middle east and to heck with one of our best friends.

We've also recently learned that the intent of this White House is to get an amnesty bill through. The same amnesty bill that the American people got up in arms over a couple of years ago and shut down when Congress was about to pass it.

It's becoming more and more apparent that the best way to take advantage of the opportunities available in the United States is to give up your citizenship, move to Mexico, sneak back in as an illegal alien. You're assured a job. If you happen to be a terrorist, you'll get relocated to a beautiful resort in Bermuda and you won't have to worry about the laws passed in this country because you'll be living in luxury in the sunshine, getting a nice tan and the United States Taxpayer will be paying your expenses.

If you're not thrilled with the Atlantic Ocean, there's always this little island 500 miles from the Phillipines out in the Pacific Ocean, that you could go to, and the taxpayers are giving that island money to cover your expenses. I could say something about socialism and the government taking care of the people, but I'm a but confused because our government seems to be taking care of our enemies.

Why does it appear to me that the fox is guarding the hen house?

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

David Letterman: Dirty Old Man or Pedophile or both?

I should warn you up front that this could be a very long piece or a very short one. I am incensed at what’s been happening lately especially in two areas. I’m going to take the one that makes me angriest, and let me state right up front, if any of you liberals are reading this and want to talk about other situations, you’re out of luck. There is absolutely no excuse for this from either side, any side or even no side.

David Letterman. He is the final straw in anyone on the left talking about civil discourse. It’s bad enough with Keith Olberman being on display daily with his hatred. He proves that NBC is not a news organization. They are an Obama advertising crew. Add to that Chris Matthews with that tingle running down his leg. Hey Chris. Step into the bathroom, I think you misspelled “tingle”. You might want to grab some tissue and clean that up.

Then there’s Nora O’Donnell, Contessa Brewer, Brian Williams bowing to Obama, who bows to the King of Saudi Arabia. The list goes on. But, what David Letterman did the other night on his program was beyond decency and as far as I’m concerned, pornographic.

I have long been of the belief that politicians, by nature of their positions are open fodder for criticism for their policies, their beliefs and their lack of beliefs. However, there is a difference between criticism and outright abuse. Letterman saying that Governor Sarah Palin had been shopping for makeup to update her “slutty flight attendant” look was just flat out distasteful. If his opinion is that Palin looks slutty, what does he feel about his own wife? After all, Palin was married before she had children. Letterman can’t say the same thing about his wife. Where is the National Organization for Women? Why aren’t they defending Palin? Why aren’t they defending flight attendants?

The comment about Palin, while supposedly a joke, was part of his top ten list. However, another comment was made during his monologue. This was not part of his top ten list. Sarah Palin was visiting New York with her 14 year old daughter, Willow. Did you get that? Willow is 14 years old. Letterman, during his monologue, said that Palin took her daughter to a New York Yankees game and during the 7th inning of the game, Alex Rodriguez knocked up her daughter.

David Letterman is a 62 year old man (I use the term “man”, loosely). With that comment, about a 14 year old girl, suggesting it did happen, even suggesting it could happen, would happen or might happen, puts Letterman into the category of a pedophile to me. That pervert should have been removed from the airwaves immediately. Where are you CBS? Are these the standards that you want for your programming? Apparently, you have dropped your standards even further. Allowing Dan Rather to forge documents and then put them on the air was serious enough, but now you’re keeping a pedophile on the air.

How many times have we heard these moronic liberals say that the Republicans, not just Conservatives, but Republicans, are racists because they disagree with Obama? How many of these jackasses in the Democrat Party called the Tea Party attendees racists? Hate filled? With no proof to back up that even one person attending the Tea Parties was a racist. They talk about the Republican Party being run by balding white men. It is the Democrats that constantly bring up race, gender, age. They are the ones that are racists and have a problem with gender and age. Nobody else. Yet they say nothing about a pedophile having a talk show on television. Imagine if someone with a Conservative Talk Radio program, or someone on Fox said the same thing about one of Obama’s children or called Michelle Obama what Sarah Palin called. They’d be marching in the streets.

David Letterman, it’s time for you to go. CBS should have fired you immediately. Take your opportunity now and retire and join Dan Rather in the CBS archives of fools.

It takes a real coward to use the public airwaves to attack a woman and a fourteen year old child. I don’t like Hillary Clinton, but I have never said anything about her that vile. The attempt at an apology was worthless. Governor Palin responded to Lettermans apology and declined his offer to appear on his program saying she wasn't going to boost his ratings for him. Had I been Todd Palin, Governor Palin’s husband, I’d have declined for her and made my own offer to David Letterman. Come visit Alaska and let’s go for a walk on a glacier and talk about it….bring your own crutches.

There is no excuse out there to justify Letterman’s words. I dare, even one of you liberals to try and put an excuse on here using your real name rather than anonymous or a false name. There is no excuse for treating a woman this way and there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for saying what he said about a fourteen year old. I did hear that he tried to say he wasn’t speaking of Willow, but rather Bristol, the 18 year old daughter. That is supposed to be justification? Absolutely not!!

You’re welcome to comment, but if you’re a liberal, I recommend you don’t. There is no denying that Letterman is a pervert. And yes, I know that I said two areas at the beginning of this. I’m going to save the second one for another time.

Brett

The Honeymoon is over: Obama is failing

It only took a little over five months, but it's happened. The American people now trust the Republicans to handle the economy better than the Democrats. It was close last month. 44%-43%, but it's now Americans trust Republicans 46%-39% over Democrats. Of those not affiliated with the parties, the margin is 2-1 Republicans over Democrats.

Five months of spending, promised tax increases, nationalization of two car companies, and financial institutions, not to mention the increasing unemployment rate has led the American people to reject the Democrats and move to the Republicans. In fact, Republicans now lead on 6 of the 10 top issues.

In addition, two Democrats have left the Democrat party in New York and apparently now putting the State Senate into the hands of the Republicans. This over gay issues.

Europe is finding that Conservatives are more palatable than the liberals and moved towards more Conservatives in recent elections. They are expected to now hold the majority. Americans are trending the same way. This is the first time in two years that the Republicans have had the public trust on the economy. Two years ago was 2007 when the Democrats took over the House and Senate. Since the Democrats have taken over, we've been plunged into a recession and to listen to the President today, it's a very deep recession.

Democrats are changing parties, Europe is moving Conservative, Americans trust Republicans more, and the recent vote in California on five proposals show that the people, here and abroad are not happy about the way the liberals around the world are handling the crisis we've been plunged into. Add to that the reports coming out showing that the so-called stimulus bill isn't doing as it was promised to do, and unemployment is still on the rise and you have a recipe for booting out the liberal Democrats.

This is good news for Republicans for the 2010 elections, and it's also good news for the coming debates on national health care. National Health Care has a chance of going down in defeat which would save the country (millions of taxpayers) trillions of dollars.

Now when will someone conservative step up and lead these do nothing Republicans in Congress to start doing the right things and putting out the right messages? It's time for someone to step up and step up in a forceful way. Someone could step in right now and become the next Ronald Reagan and lead the Republicans back to where they ought to be. But he or she must be strong enough to keep them moving foward even after the initial bump upwards.

The Republicans nationalized the elections in 1994 and took over the congress with the promise in the Contract with America. That contract was a promise to bring ten items to a vote within the first 100 days. They did as they promised. They didn't promise to pass them all, but they did promise to have a vote on those items and they fulfilled that promise. This time, they need to make one of their contract items that they will continue to vote down laws proposed that take away freedoms and pass laws that enhance freedom. They also need to continue to push the conservative points beyond that first 100 days.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Barry Has a Date

There is some talk about the about of money being spent on the Obama's trip to New York for date night. I have no problem with Barry taking Michelle out on a date. I think date night is a good thing even for President's. It's much better, after all, than date night being an intern bringing a pizza and a cigar as President Clinton used to do.

The problem lies with who's paying for that date. The American people. At his news briefing, press secretary when asked said that Obama would have taken a commercial flight, but the Secret Service wouldn't allow it. This is reasonable, but doesn't Obama think that maybe he ought to reimburse the American people for his date?

I know a terrific lady that lives some distance from me that I'd love to take out on a date or two or ten. I wonder if I could have the American people pay for my travel time. I promise that I won't spend as much as the Obama's. Even half as much as what Obama spent though could fund someones retirement for a couple of years.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

General Motors is Dead: Long Live Government Motors

There is an excellent report in the Wall Street Journal. I recommend you read it. Here's the link. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277530070436823.html

I'll give you the shortened version, but please look at the story on the link. It's an excellent report and easy to read even if you're not in business.

In 1913, the government thought that they were being overcharged for the steel plating on warships. They decided to go into the steel business saying that they could save 30% costs in the steel. They built the steel plant. It was completed (over budget naturally), and actually went into production. Unfortunately, the war had been over for three years before it opened. They had one production run. The cost was twice as much as their competitors, the American business. They shut their doors and never opened again.

Now we have the takeover of General Motors. It's now owned by The United States of America, the Canadian government and the union. The investors in GM have been shut out. Stock has been wiped out and bondholders were forced to take nearly a 75% loss.

Obama has said he doesn't want to be in the car business and he doesn't want to be in the financial services business. So why is he in them?

There is good news however. We will now find out which runs a business better. The government or the American people. Ford did not take the bailout, and did not file bankruptcy. GM and Chrysler have accepted both. Ford is even stepping up production.

Government does want into the car business. They just entered it. They want into the health car business. Their track record? Medicare, which is full of waste, fraud and abuse. They want into the financial services business. Their track record? Social Security, which is dying a slow death and will be operating in the red in 7 short years and broke in 2037. Everyone born from 1973 on, is going to be very ticked off at their parents for wasting all of that money put into the social security system.

Remember last September and October when everyone said that the car companies can't be allowed to go into bankruptcy because nobody would buy a car from a car company that was bankrupt? What changed? I'm afraid that the government will force everyone to buy one of their cars.

What of the retired GM worker? Excuse me, the retired General Motors worker, not the Government Motors worker. They put years into their craft only to have the government take it over and now their retirement is dependent on what some crackpot in Washington DC decides to do to boost his election chances in the next term.

The recent retirees had their rough patch back in the early 80's. They made a car that didn't have the quality and they were being beaten by the Japanese upstarts that were making a better vehicle than the Americans were. But they didn't give up. They came back and made the best cars in the world. Do you really think you're going to get quality from someone receiving a government check every two weeks? I should be careful saying something like that if a liberal is reading this, because their answer will be yes.

This will also change our driving habits. Government Motors will be making cars made of a substance similar to cardboard and it will only be the size of a go-cart. We'll have to be careful and be certain that if we hit a bump in the road, to look in the rearview mirror to be certain we didn't run over a Government Motors made car.

This is a sad day for America. 2/3 of the Auto Industry has been taken over by the Obama Administration. He even admitted that this wasn't going to work well. That more jobs will be lost, more plants will be closing, never to reopen and more dealerships will be shutting their doors.

When a man/woman opens a business, they are upbeat, proud, anxious to get to work to make their business grow. They are full of optimism. But when the government takes over a business, they are not optimistic. They predict doom and gloom for a long time to come.

Mr. Obama, if you don't want to get into the Car business and the finance business, here's a suggestion for you. It's really simple. 'DON'T! You will not be able to compete with the American worker, nor the American spirit of entrepreneurial enterprise. You're doomed to failure just as the government was in 1913 when they decided they could do it better and proved that they couldn't.

I wonder, does this mean that the liberals will now turn their hatred towards Ford for daring to succeed?

You're comments are welcome.

Brett